|
when my wife and i play games, one of us will beat the other by 1-3 points (no matter how high the score goes), or we will lose massively because a 3rd person playing took advantage of us focusing on each other too much.
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 23:56 |
|
|
enigmahfc posted:The Transformers deck builder is just fine, but "ameritrash' as hell. And I enjoy Punching Soundwave in the dick and pretending it's 11 year old me doing it. It's one of the worst designed games I've ever had the misfortune to play. It just doesn't work on any level as a game. I'll uncover some things, maybe they're good, maybe they're bad who knows! it's just random chance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2022 18:01
|
|
|
Morpheus posted:Yeah my gf enjoys competitive games, though sometimes can get a little too competitive. She doesn't mind losing because someone got a higher score, but if that person got a higher score because they denied her points, then she gets frustrated. I like to use the phrase "it's not tournament [insert name of game]" to imply that look, no one here is a pro, there's no money on the line, there's no trophy etc... My point being that not every game experience has to be balls to the wall no holds barred fight to the death. Competition is fun and worthwhile and without it why are we even playing this game but I know a couple of people, one of whom is one of my closest friends actually, who cannot turn the edge off and frankly ruins many games with this "win at all costs" behaviour that results in poo poo like pouting when losing, diminishing your wins as the result of his own failures, and/or sneakily taking moves/actions when everyone else is loudly commentating on their own actions so as to get an get away with something without your knowledge. I think I posted about this a few pages back but this is the same guy who lost it in Keyflower because his wife accidentally hate-bid on the winter tile he had been aiming for, it was embarrassing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
FulsomFrank posted:I like to use the phrase "it's not tournament [insert name of game]" to imply that look, no one here is a pro, there's no money on the line, there's no trophy etc... My point being that not every game experience has to be balls to the wall no holds barred fight to the death. Yeah they need to take a chill pill for sure. Away from the table you might want to mention they are ruining not only their own experience but others as well. As we are discussing, board gaming is a social experience and your friend needs to understand that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2022 18:15
|
|
|
The thing about the TTR OP is that his mom wasn't even playing aggressively from what the reddit post says. She was just off in her own part of the map building segments. I don't understand how someone could have learned the rules of the game and thought that was not allowed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
Mayveena posted:(not speaking as an IK here). "Loathes" is strong I think. This thread is for people who are in or interested in games as a hobby right? And as you say there are people who play these types of random generation style games that are playing solely to see what happens. It's kind of like many photography forums. People who discuss cameras in those forums don't necessarily loath camera phones, but they aren't the focus and if folks bring up camera phones (in a non camera phone specific thread) then what they are saying may be dismissed. And that can happen in this thread as well which I believe (personally not as an IK) is expected behavior. hm? I wasn't really making any judgment on game design, just hypothesizing about different tastes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2022 18:19
|
|
I think we can agree that all of us want this to be a welcoming thread and actively loathing folks choices doesn't quite accomplish that? We experienced Rutibex back in the day, but I think the issue there was that Rutibex couldn't seem to see that the random experience games they discussed were really not much difference than rolling dice. It's totally acceptable to like dice rolling games. Not as much when you insist that they are the pinnacle of board game design.
|
armorer posted:The thing about the TTR OP is that his mom wasn't even playing aggressively from what the reddit post says. She was just off in her own part of the map building segments. I don't understand how someone could have learned the rules of the game and thought that was not allowed. Yeah that's just funny, unclear how anyone could get mad at that unless her semi-random route building somehow cost you the game but honestly, it's ticket to ride folks let's be real here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
FulsomFrank posted:Yeah that's just funny, unclear how anyone could get mad at that unless her semi-random route building somehow cost you the game but honestly, it's ticket to ride folks let's be real here. True, it’s not like sheep theft in Agricola
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
The Eyes Have It posted:I know this isn't the thrust of your post. but I don't generally take with the idea of "I will never play one whit below my abililty, because to do so would be to disrespect the game/my opponent" for a number of reasons, but the one I will share is that some games -- chess comes to mind -- are the kind of game where "the better I play, the less you get to play" and for such games especially I just don't find it very constructive to come out swinging 24/7, especially if you're trying to get someone interested in what the game has to offer. I think there's a lot of room to explore between "I won't let you win" and "I will go as hard as I can, all the time." When I teach my 6-year old son (or anyone, for that matter) how to play games, I generally don't make intentional misplays, or throw games, but I don't go all out and dunk on him either. I will often talk about strategy, and the choices we're making, and explain my thinking as I make my moves. I usually don't try very hard to optimize my plays, so much as play with a clear strategy and avoid glaring mistakes so that he learns good game habits and making his own strategy to win. There's a few games, like Blokus, that he can seriously give me a run for my money at now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:I know people who aren't able to emotionally handle player conflict well in games where there are mixes of conflict and non-conflict paths. E.g. one in particular will get pissed if you block her in a worker placement game, but if it's a full conflict game like Root she'll be just fine. poo poo, in a full-conflict game she's outright bloodthirsty. She's also fine with co-op games: it's just when the game has this particular space she has a tendency to get mad, maybe because blocking actions feel more personal or something idk. My partner to a tee. We decided to start playing through our collection alphabetically, culling as we go, this past weekend. 7 Wonders, 878: Vikings, Agricola We played back to back 4p quick rounds of 7W and 7 Blunders while also shifting chairs. Everyone had fun. 878: we had the shortest Viking invasion ever, driven off before the Berserker even had a single turn. Everyone had fun. Agricola, I took a vegetable she wanted in round 1 and she spent the rest of the game trying to murder me with her eyes. (and I set a personal record. 56 points) All three games survived the cull, btw.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2022 19:13
|
|
|
The unwritten rules that do make competitive board gamers made are all about king making though imho.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2022 22:33
|
|
|
wait, are we being encouraged to not loathe games here, or are we being told that we cannot? On the one hand, I agree that loathe is a strong word and being welcoming is important, and on the other hand, Cards Against Humanity encourages people to laugh at rape and others' ethnic background.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2022 22:50
|
|
|
Admiralty Flag posted:I distinctly remember once when I was younger my father getting viscerally upset with my mother. We (or they; I can't remember if I was old enough to be included yet) were playing Scrabble, and whenever a line to get to (e.g.) a triple word score appeared, if she couldn't make use of it, she would block it off with a garbage word, even if she had a better play point-wise available to her. From what I remember of their argument, in his mind, she was ruining the experience of the game by preventing elegant plays, while she was making sure he didn't outscore her. Similarly, my gran stopped playing dominoes with me after I sussed out the strategy of eliminating all the highest values from my hand and then locking up the ends. She felt that not trying to go out was against the spirit of the game. (She still left me the dominoes when she passed; it's a nice set of niners that were bought for her elder sister in 1912.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
homullus posted:wait, are we being encouraged to not loathe games here, or are we being told that we cannot? On the one hand, I agree that loathe is a strong word and being welcoming is important, and on the other hand, Cards Against Humanity encourages people to laugh at rape and others' ethnic background. You can loathe games. I'm saying that we shouldn't, not that we cannot. The only thing (still) is no discussion about KDM. Try to be welcoming is all I'm saying. E: If you call someone a loving idiot for liking munchkin, that could be a problem. Mayveena fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Apr 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
My friend really likes munchkin, and I like my friend, so I play it like once a year. Fortunately he also likes a lot of much better games so it's not like he's always itching to play it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 00:03
|
|
|
PSA: The Anunnaki KS has a bunch of promos you can access via a $1 pledge manager access https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/craniocreations/anunnaki Bunch of promos for - Barrage - Golem - Lorenzo Il Magnifico - Maha Raja - Mystery House - Newton - Pakal
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 00:59
|
|
|
St0rmD posted:I think there's a lot of room to explore between "I won't let you win" and "I will go as hard as I can, all the time." I don't know how to not let someone win without going "all out" as it were. When someone says "don't let me win," them winning is a failure state unless they beat me while I'm playing as I usually do, or have I wildly misinterpreted the statement?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 13:58
|
|
|
One way of avoiding "letting someone win" while still making the game a valuable learning experience is to explain your moves. "Okay, so I've got 6 wood now, and I'm thinking of upgrading my wheelbarrow to a wagon next turn, so I'm going to make this guy a lumberjack this turn and hope nobody buys the carpenters tools..." kind of thing. Your actual moves are still the same, but because the other player knows what you're doing you're both easier to beat and they get to know what an experienced player is thinking as they play the game. Another example might be not going for extreme meta strategies. Like if you're introducing someone to Warhammer 40k and they've got a starter ork army with some infantry, a couple of buggies and a warboss, and you turn up with some min-maxed Tau gunline army designed by tournament-level players and his army never gets a hit on yours. Gort fucked around with this message at 14:13 on Apr 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 14:11
|
|
|
Gort posted:One way of avoiding "letting someone win" while still making the game a valuable learning experience is to explain your moves. "Okay, so I've got 6 wood now, and I'm thinking of upgrading my wheelbarrow to a wagon next turn, so I'm going to make this guy a lumberjack this turn and hope nobody buys the carpenters tools..." kind of thing. Your actual moves are still the same, but because the other player knows what you're doing you're both easier to beat and they get to know what an experienced player is thinking as they play the game. This is what I do, and occasionally explain why what they're about to do is a terrible move. But only moves that do nothing or are actually detrimental, rather than just suboptimal plays. Moves that perhaps say that your rules explanation was inadequate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 14:19
|
|
|
Gort posted:Another example might be not going for extreme meta strategies. Like if you're introducing someone to Warhammer 40k and they've got a starter ork army with some infantry, a couple of buggies and a warboss, and you turn up with some min-maxed Tau gunline army designed by tournament-level players and his army never gets a hit on yours. Let's assume that this was supposed to be a beginner/entry level Warhammer game and neither had played before. I'm going to guess that the person with the beginner level army will play a lot better than the person who downloaded an army and has no clue how to actually win with it. Top level 'stuff' generally requires top level play and many times you can really shoot yourself in the foot trying to start with the 'best' army or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 14:21
|
|
|
Gort posted:One way of avoiding "letting someone win" while still making the game a valuable learning experience is to explain your moves. "Okay, so I've got 6 wood now, and I'm thinking of upgrading my wheelbarrow to a wagon next turn, so I'm going to make this guy a lumberjack this turn and hope nobody buys the carpenters tools..." kind of thing. Your actual moves are still the same, but because the other player knows what you're doing you're both easier to beat and they get to know what an experienced player is thinking as they play the game. Modeling optimal play while also providing appropriate pointers (which will vary by context, a 6-year-old is going to need more handholding than a competitive strategy gamer) is a great way of teaching without being soulcrushing for either player.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 14:56
|
|
|
Yeah I mean, I'm teaching my 7yo how to play games respectfully. He has a bad problem with getting blocked, losing, he hates it, he's really competitive. But giving him (a free card in splendor, a few stones in 9x9 go, etc) as well as walking through my reasoning when I take a move (I'm totally going after that cool card! look, your group here only has one liberty left) leads to much, much better results. I've gone over my being a strong proponent of handicaps in games, though, and recognize not everyone is okay with that path. The explaining reasoning is good though!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 15:00
|
|
|
That's...okay now I have a more delicate question. Handicap? Is that a term that is still reasonable to use for this purpose? If not, are there any alternate words I can use? I'm not sure if I've seen it discussed before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:That's...okay now I have a more delicate question.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 15:15
|
|
|
I believe it is still totally acceptable in a gaming context.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 15:16
|
|
|
Gort posted:One way of avoiding "letting someone win" while still making the game a valuable learning experience is to explain your moves. "Okay, so I've got 6 wood now, and I'm thinking of upgrading my wheelbarrow to a wagon next turn, so I'm going to make this guy a lumberjack this turn and hope nobody buys the carpenters tools..." kind of thing. Your actual moves are still the same, but because the other player knows what you're doing you're both easier to beat and they get to know what an experienced player is thinking as they play the game. I like this! Feels like what we do when we're teaching 18xx to newbies. The only trap I often fall into is overexplaining strategy and long-term consequences of certain actions but that's kind of the nice thing about games like 18xx is that once you grok the main system the only poo poo you have to worry about are people forgetting/not understanding the train rush and the various one-offs scenario changes in the different games that even I forget.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
According to this: https://www.disabilitymuseum.org/dhm/edu/essay.html?id=30 Handicap was originally a game term, the association with disability came much later
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:That's...okay now I have a more delicate question. Handicap was used to mean a disadvantage in sports long before it was used to reference people who may be in need of accommodations. It was only starting to be used as slang for people in the early 1900s. I don’t see a problem using handicap to reference a disadvantage in a game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 15:21
|
|
|
I've found that when I'm doing that "thinking out loud" teaching strategy that it also fetters my ability to plan optimally, so it makes me a worse player and leads to a more even game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
Mayveena posted:(not speaking as an IK here). "Loathes" is strong I think. This thread is for people who are in or interested in games as a hobby right? And as you say there are people who play these types of random generation style games that are playing solely to see what happens. It's kind of like many photography forums. People who discuss cameras in those forums don't necessarily loath camera phones, but they aren't the focus and if folks bring up camera phones (in a non camera phone specific thread) then what they are saying may be dismissed. And that can happen in this thread as well which I believe (personally not as an IK) is expected behavior. Mayveena posted:You can loathe games. I'm saying that we shouldn't, not that we cannot. The only thing (still) is no discussion about KDM. Try to be welcoming is all I'm saying. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 15:31
|
|
|
Now I know! Thanks for the responses, really appreciate it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
Gort posted:One way of avoiding "letting someone win" while still making the game a valuable learning experience is to explain your moves. "Okay, so I've got 6 wood now, and I'm thinking of upgrading my wheelbarrow to a wagon next turn, so I'm going to make this guy a lumberjack this turn and hope nobody buys the carpenters tools..." kind of thing. Your actual moves are still the same, but because the other player knows what you're doing you're both easier to beat and they get to know what an experienced player is thinking as they play the game. This is really helpful, thank you much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 17:08
|
|
|
Mayveena posted:E: If you call someone a loving idiot for liking munchkin, that could be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 19:45
|
|
|
Hey Magnetic North, I think more people read your OP than you realize! Cranio had to cancel their KS because 2/3'rds of the backers backed at the $1 pledge. I think that's pretty funny. And people are tired of this poo poo "They set a fake super low campaign goal (an annoying trend) and really needed to hit 200,000-300,000 to make the project viable, and were way off actual projection." Particularly with Cranio you'd have to be a real sucker to make a full pledge (opinion of course) and I suspect more and more KS's who offer $1 pledges are going to see folks choose that. There's zero downside and the company doesn't get to keep your money for years. They say they are going to re-launch it but I doubt it. Bet they send it straight to retail.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 00:33
|
|
|
I think it's more that they locked a ton of cool promos behind the $1 pm tier, and everyone was backing for those (I know I was)
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 00:44
|
|
|
Infinitum posted:I think it's more that they locked a ton of cool promos behind the $1 pm tier, and everyone was backing for those (I know I was) Yeah, as much as I was planning to back at $1 for the reasons Mayveena mentions, the BGG thread on why people pledged $1 tells me that I was in, by far, the minority of $1 pledgers in terms of my motivations. Most of 'em just were unsure about a Luciani 4x game but wanted to supplement all their other cool Cranio purchases with a bunch of new and exclusive promos being offered at the $1 tier.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 00:54
|
|
|
Infinitum posted:I think it's more that they locked a ton of cool promos behind the $1 pm tier, and everyone was backing for those (I know I was) Me as well. However a person might be more willing to do a $1 pledge anyway if it looks like the project is funded. They totally deserved what happened.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 01:47
|
|
|
Mr. Squishy posted:Oh, I've seen a lot of people say "cheating" to mean "playing in a way that kills the fun." It's imprecise but understandable. In sports this would be the Neutral Zone Trap (90s NHL) or the Shift (MLB), or basically any effective defense that "makes the game boring".
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 02:54
|
|
|
So am I going totally crazy here or did Arkham Horror LCG just tease honest-to-god Carmen Sandiego as an upcoming investigator?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 03:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 23:56 |
|
|
Rockman Reserve posted:So am I going totally crazy here or did Arkham Horror LCG just tease honest-to-god Carmen Sandiego as an upcoming investigator? If I can travel through time and swat Cthulhu with the Empire State Building I might have to pick up AH LCG.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 03:37
|
|